Thursday, 11 November 2010

Canon To The Left Of Them

Fellow GeekPlanet writer Pete MacKenzie has an interesting article on canon up this week, and I thought the issue of "retconning" was worth discussing.

Like Pete, I need to have retroactive continuity explained. The "shit happens" approach espoused by his other half is one I find deeply unsatisfying, partially because I have trouble with the idea that mistakes are ignorable simply because they're inevitable, but mainly because I am convinced that every single human being across the world with access to fiction has a story they regard so highly, and love so fervently, that attempts to continue that story without checking the two slot together would lead to serious problems. This, indeed, is one of the many very good reasons people are often leery (to say the least) about sequels to their most beloved works of fiction.

To me, whilst such mistakes are inevitable, they are generally speaking a sign of a someone screwing up, and should be judged as such. Screen-writing slip-ups are no less fair game than wobbly sets, hammy acting, or gratuitous nudity. Some mistakes bother some people more than others. It might not necessarily be fair to blame the writer themselves, checking the entirety of a TV show's run is probably a bit much to demand of someone writing their first episode during the seventh season, but someone certainly dropped the ball somewhere.

This isn't the whole story, of course. Sometimes mistakes are deliberately made following the conscious decision that it will improve the story. Clarke did this with each sequel to 2001, believing it more important that the stories kept up with the times than that they stayed true to each other. On a much smaller scale, Joss Whedon admits in a BtVS DVD commentary that he deliberately removing all the dead bodies for the final shot in the Bronze in "The Harvest" because it somewhat ruined the elation over Buffy's triumph to have her wading through the corpses of those she was too late to save because her mother had grounded her.

Obviously, mileages may vary. I don't like Clarke's approach but I'm fine with Whedons (not doubt in large part because Whedon had to point it out before I noticed). In truth, however, I'm not sure either of these examples gets us to the heart of why I generally dislike retconning.

It's here that I diverge from Pete's viewpoint (though we meet back up again at the end; I've been complaining about airbrushing out historical bigotry ever since the whole Vic Fontaine debacle on DS9). I freely acknowledge that retcons can work very well, and further that they can be necessary tools to smooth over mistakes and rough edges, or to simply erase spectacular creative mis-steps that have otherwise irrepairably damaged your fictional world. Sometimes you really do need to reach for the Etch-a-Sketch and start shaking, and sometimes the "it was only a dream" ending can be forgiven because you're so desperate for an ending of any kind.

Despite recognising all that - and here's why Clarke and Whedon aren't great examples - my problem with retconning is that frequently it amounts to one writer deciding that their ideas are so good they justify tampering with another writers' work.

Obviously, they might be right. There are many examples of backstory tweaking that improves the situation. Of course, there are far more that make things worse. The worst kinds of sequels aren't those that simply suck, it's those that actively damage what came before. Alien3 springs immediately to mind. Not only is it a difficult film to love on its own merits (though it is certainly not entirely without merit) the deaths of Hicks and (especially) Newt at the start of the film makes the conclusion of Aliens far less satisfying. I realise that in this particular case it wasn't a creative decision to do away with Hicks and Newt, I believe Carrie Henn and Michael Biehn just didn't want to come back. Having said that, how hard would it have been to have Ripley's pod jettisoned (possibly alongside Bishop's) but leave the other two safely on board?

Even when an author fiddles with their own work, it can bug me, since generally speaking its their fans love for what has gone before that keeps them in the money they need to keep writing, but it's far worse when the latest head honcho decides to start cutting and pasting their ideas over those of others. It is, quite simply, rude. And I don't think that's changed by the fact that from time to time, a little rudeness is called for.

13 comments:

On the whole I agree with your point of view here. I'm intrigued as to what specifically you object to about Vic Fontaine? If you're protesting against the idea that rat pack mentality was inherently racist and sexist, and that this was swept under the rug by introducing the character, then I seem to recall that it was (admittedly briefly) acknowledged via Sisko's sense of outrage in 'Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang'.

Admittedly, that's possibly another example of retconning from a perceived mistake in the writing - I think it's one of the positive examples though!

Well, as you know, my main problem with Fontaine was that he was a terrible character that made almost every episode he featured in freaking terrible. In this specific case, though, it's less the rat pack mentatlity and just the general racism of the period.

I remembered Sisko's complaints about it, and thought that was a necessary and well-written scene (compare this to my dislike of Far Beyond The Stars, for example) but the problem with Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang isn't that it only deals with the issue briefly, it's that it does it almost a full year after the character and his club were introduced. Fixing the mistake at that late date doesn't change how long it was there for.

I also disagree with the idea it was a retcon. Sisko had never been to that program, and he finally admitted why. It might have been a nod to something previously overlooked, but retcons change what we thought we knew, they don't merely explain something previously not discussed.

(As a side note, I should mention that the Fontaine issue is slightly different from the Torchwood one, in that the latter required us to believe gay men could kiss whilst genuinely in public, whereas Fontaine's club requires us only to believe that people in the future write highly edited versions of history to make everyone feel happy inside. In short, Torchwood was what Pete calls a "historical retcon"; DS9 was showing us someone who had put a historical retcon together.)

I see what you mean. Alien3 was not offered as an example of a retcon, merely as an example of why negating the work of a previous writer is a shitty thing to do. In this case the negation is via undermining the conclusion of the previous film, but the point remains that it's A Bad Idea, which is what I was driving at.

Having said that, the idea that there were two facehuggers/a facehugger "queen" aboard the Sulaco most certainly is a retcon, because it makes no sense upon re-watching the previous film, so I think it actually can be used as an example of retconning causing problems.

As to the Buffy issue, stylistic choices and retcons are not mutually exclusive. The fact that it happens about three minutes after the bodies appear in the first place makes it a very minor example, especially given the fact that I didn't notice it and that it makes total stylistic sense, but nonetheless, it exists as an example (moreover, as an example of how it can work).

Regarding Omar (and anyone who hasn't seen The Wire in full should look away now), I have no idea why anyone would say it undermines preceeding episodes. Aliens was at heart a (very violent) story about motherhood and devotion, and that's why it was so important that Ripley escape Hadley's Hope alongside Newt. The Wire is most emphatically not about whether Omar gets revenge on Marlowe. Whilst I can understand why people might not like how Omar's fate was handled (I'm still not sure where I stand on the matter myself), it's difficult to see how it weakens any earlier aspects of the story. Especially since that story is one of the randomness and inpersonality of gang violence in Baltimore.

But Aliens still is about motherhood (and blowing shit up) the events of Alien3 dosen't change that, so that's where I guess I don't see issue and others do.

As for the 2nd Queen it's possible that any facehugger has the possibility of being a Queen of a colony needs one. It's not like we know the full details of how the Aliens develop/work. I'd wouldn't really call it a retcon as much as something which is undefined.

If you a technical style retcon than T2 certainly is one, what with the T-1000 being able to time travel despite the no metal rule.

I still really wouldn't call the Buffy example a 'retcon', yes it's something where continunity from one shot to another changes but for me something labelled as a 'retcon' has to be something that dramatically changes a story or character in order to makes things fit in with a later story element.

I find that attempts to explain a retcon tend to just come across as being "hey look, we're explaining a retcon", which is far worse than just getting on and doing it quietly.

I also find it hard to find something in one story undermined by something in a later one, since it's all made up anyway and we can just believe what we like. Especially if the writers have changed, because then we're not having the Grand Idea of one person revealed.

I'm not calling the mere existence of a Facehugger Queen a retcon (though I disagree that such a thing must necessarily exist), simply the fact that it got onboard the Sulaco.

The point with Aliens is that the motherhood story ends in vindication for Ripley. She fights to save Newt at least in part to excise her guilt over missing almost the entirety of her daughter's life (which is why I thought it a bad idea the relevant scene was originally cut from the movie). That idea is deeply compromised when you know that her victorious struggle is only in fact the first act of her ultimate failure.

We've gone back on forth on the T-1000 question, and I still say you're totally wrong. There is nothing to suggest the T-1000 wasn't originally covered in skin and flesh just like the T-101; skin which it shucked just after arrival. Indeed, the fact that wherever possible it maintains the form of Robert Patrick suggests it has a single dominant form programmed into it, which would make sense if it started with that organic form originally. The only reason we didn't see that could well be to preserve the mystery of who Patrick actually was (spoiler-heavy film advertising aside). Still, if I haven't persuaded you on that point yet, it's probably not going to happen now ;)

Regarding the Buffy issue, I think we're down to definitions. I'm happy with "minor retcon", but if you think retcons should by definition be of a certain magnitude, then fair enough.

"The point with Aliens is that the motherhood story ends in vindication for Ripley. She fights to save Newt at least in part to excise her guilt over missing almost the entirety of her daughter's life (which is why I thought it a bad idea the relevant scene was originally cut from the movie). That idea is deeply compromised when you know that her victorious struggle is only in fact the first act of her ultimate failure."

I just don't think events that haven't happened to a character yet undermine their emotional experience in a previous events. Thats like saying if you love someone and they die then the fact you loved them in the first place is cheapened.

Ripley still had that experience as a character, that's not taken away because Newt dies. She's not suddenly reset to the Ripley of Alien.

With the facehugger veing on Sulaco that's I guess fair enough to question but I guess you can just suggest it hopped a lift with the Queen (it's less questionable than the one that brings the jump ship down!)

As for the Buffy example you use it's closer to a continunity error like someone having the wrong shirt on then it is to a 'retcon'. It's not even retro active (which is half the term!), something that was visible in one shot, isn't in the next. It helps change the tone but doesn't massively alter anything.

"I just don't think events that haven't happened to a character yet undermine their emotional experience in a previous events. Thats like saying if you love someone and they die then the fact you loved them in the first place is cheapened."

It most certainly isn't, mainly because fiction and real life work according to different rules. The only way for your position to make sense is if you'd be happy if Aliens was identical to the original film for 99% of its run, only for Newt to be killed at the very end, just before the credits roll. I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of Newt dying at the conclusion, but I would argue the film would need re-jigging from its current form.

"(it's less questionable than the one that brings the jump ship down!)"

Not at all. Ferro's dropship has been sat on the landing pad for some time whilst Spunkmeyer is in medical with Bishop. The second ship is there for what seems to be far shorter a time, and after the characters have been alerted to the potential for alien infestation. The idea that the computer-brained Bishop wouldn't think to close the doors is ludicrous.

"As for the Buffy example you use it's closer to a continunity error like someone having the wrong shirt on then it is to a 'retcon'."

Again, I disagree. Continuity errors are accidental. Deliberately ignoring story aspects to make things work better is a retcon, although again I admit that it's a very minor one, used for good purpose.

"Purely from a 'editorial' pov., the way you're using the Alien3 example is nothing to do with retcons or continunity tho' it's just forward progress , so it does make your post a little unfocused."

Like I said, I see your point. I don't agree it has nothing to do with retcons, but you're right that I dropped the ball in explaining exactly what was going on in my head.

"I find that attempts to explain a retcon tend to just come across as being "hey look, we're explaining a retcon", which is far worse than just getting on and doing it quietly."

I get what you mean, though I'd argue that some retcons are sufficiently obvious that "doing it quietly" is already out of the question.

"I also find it hard to find something in one story undermined by something in a later one, since it's all made up anyway and we can just believe what we like."

This is just one of those things where I disagree fundamentally. Stories work best when we buy into them. We know they're not real, but we try to forget that whilst we experience them, because that's what works best. Anthing that impedes that process is, to me at least, a definite problem.

"Stories work best when we buy into them. We know they're not real, but we try to forget that whilst we experience them,"

OK, but I don't think that needs to worry us when we've finished one story and gone on to the next one, and the previous one is "undermined". It only really matters if there's initially a feeling of a "grand design" in the first episode that's undermined by demonstration in the next episode that there is no such design. This is a special case because a feeling of grand design can't be fully realized without the "payoff". In most cases, however, the payoff is at the end of the first story, and so you've already experienced the payoff when you move to the next episode. So if the next episode proceeds in a way that "cheapens" the original payoff, don't worry too much about it.

You can think of it as two stories, if you like. There's the one that finishes at the end of the first episode, and then there's the one that carries on. So you don't lose anything from the first. One shouldn't allow a sequel to make the original worse than if the sequel never existed; that's just choosing to be unhappier than necessary. I don't like choosing sure loss.

I think we'll just have to agree we have different understandings of the term 'retcon'

I still don't see how Alien3 is in anyway a retcon. (The facehugger is a bit of 'how the?' moment but since we have no evidence either way if it's there before or not in Aliens it's not a retcon)

And don't understand why you think that Aliens would have to be 99% the same as Alien for my standpoint to work. Newt's death does not as I said automatically reset Ridley as if Aliens had never happened to her which is what you seems to think, that somehow with Newt dying Ridley's emotional journey in Aliens is void. It's just not the case.

(One of these day's I'll make you watch the Godfather series and see that emotional journey exploded your head...)

Plus I agree with Bighead above even he does phrase it in an overly maths way.

And like I said I don't count the Buffy one because it's a production design choice that helps the feel of the moment. Nobody is claiming that what just happended didn't happend, which is what you would need for it to be a retcon.

If everyone that had died was very obviously alive again I'd be with you, but thats not the case.